Offprint From:

Time and History in

the Ancient Near East
Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
at Barcelona
26–30 July 2010

edited by
L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2013
 © 2013 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rencontre assyriologique internationale (56th : 2010 : Barcelona, Spain)

Time and history in the ancient Near East : proceedings of the 56th Rencontre
assyriologique internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010 / edited by L. Feliu,
J. Llop, A. Millet Alba, and J. Sanmartín.
    pages cm
Conference proceedings in English, French, and German.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-57506-255-6 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Assyria—Civilization—Congresses.  2. Beginning—Congresses. 
3.  Cosmology—Congresses.  I.  Feliu, Lluís, 1965– editor.  II.  Title.
DS71.R47 2013
299′.21—dc23
2013020959

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American Na-
tional Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materi-
als, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™
 Contents

56th World Congress for Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology,

Barcelona 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Address (July 26, 2010) Prof. Joaquín Sanmartín, Chairman
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Opening Lectures
Time before Time: Primeval Narratives in Early Mesopotamian Literature . . .  3
Gonzalo Rubio
The Extent of Literacy in Syria and Palestine during the
Second Millennium b.c.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
Wilfred H. van Soldt

Time and History in

the Ancient Near East
Time “Pulled up” in Ashurnasirpal’s Reliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
Laura Battini
Akkadian and Aramaic Terms for a ‘Favorable Time’
(ḫidānu, adānu, and ʿiddān): Semitic Precursors of Greek kairos? . . .  47
Daniel Bodi
Masters of Time: Old Babylonian Kings and Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
Dominique Charpin and Nele Ziegler
Notes on the Neo-Assyrian Siege-Shield and Chariot . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
Fabrice De Backer
Changing Space, Time, and Meaning: The Seal of Yaqaru from Ugarit—
A Reconversion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79
Silvana Di Paolo
Time in Neo-Assyrian Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  91
Frederick Mario Fales
The Historical Preamble of the Talmi-Šarruma Treaty (CTH 75) and
Some Chronological Problems of the History of Halap . . . . . . . . . 101
Daria Gromova
Magie et Histoire: les rituels en temps de guerre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Cynthia Jean

v
vi Contents

Time and Again: Marduk’s Travels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Erika D. Johnson
Time in Death and Afterlife: The Concept of Time and
the Belief in Afterlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Dina Katz
Concepts and Perception of Time in Mesopotamian Divination . . . . . . . . . 127
Ulla Susanne Koch
Temps, mémoire et évolution des cultures aux époques archaïques:
écriture du passé et listes lexicales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Camille Lecompte
Time in Ancient Israel: Hebrew ʿôlām, Past and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Baruch A. Levine
“Lange Jahre” und Lebenszeit bei den Hethitern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Jürgen Lorenz
The Heuristic Value of E. de Martino’s Concept of Metahistory and
Related Topics in Research into Mesopotamian Cultural History . . . . 181
Alessandro Di Ludovico
“I Read the Inscriptions from before the Flood . . .”
Neo-Sumerian Influences in Ashurbanipal’s Royal Self-Image . . . . . 199
Natalie Naomi May
Mesopotamian Idea of Time through Modern Eyes
(Disruption and Continuity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Àngel Menargues Rajadell
Temporalité et spatialité dans les rites de passage de l’Anatolie hittite . . . . . 229
Alice Mouton
Reconsidering the Categories of Time in Ancient Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Susana B. Murphy
“Internal” and “External” Evidence for a
Reconstruction of Nuzi Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
P. Negri Scafa
The Other Face of the Moon: Some Hints on the Visual Representation
of the Moon on Third-Millennium b.c.e. Mesopotamian Glyptic . . . . . 265
Sara Pizzimenti
The Tuleilat al-Ghassul Star Painting: A Hypothesis Regarding
a Solar Calendar from the Fourth Millennium b.c. . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Andrea Polcaro
The Monster’s Gaze: Vision as Mediator between Time and Space in
the Art of Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
K. Sonik
A Time to Rejoice: The Egalkura Rituals and the Mirth of Iyyar . . . . . . . . 301
Henry Stadhouders
Der Kalendar von Adab im 3. Jahrtausend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
M. Such-Gutiérrez
 Contents vii

Divine or Human Creation of Time? The Issue of Time as a

Factor Determining the Relationship of Man to God . . . . . . . . . . 341
Krzysztof Ulanowski

Workshops
Architecture and Archaeology
Modern Architecture and Archaeology: The Case of the Hypothetical
Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Palace at
Tell Massaïkh (Syria), 2007–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Jordi Abadal, Pedro Azara, David Capellas,
Albert Imperial, and Miguel Orellana
Idea and Image: How What We Know Determines What We Want to Know . . 369
Fernando Escribano Martín
Architecture and Ancient Near East in Drawings, Buildings,
and Virtual Reality: Issues in Imagining and Designing
Ancient and Modern Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Maria Gabriella Micale
Invented Space: Discovering Near Eastern Architecture
through Imaginary Representations and Constructions . . . . . . . . . 391
Davide Nadali
Fragments d’arts mésopotamiens: aux origines des empires . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Maria Grazia Masetti-Rouault
Reception of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture in Europe and
North America in the 20th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Brigitte Pedde
Assyrian Wall Paintings and Modern Reconstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
Paola Poli

Early Akkadian and Its Semitic Context

Form und Datierung früher semitischer Lehnwörter im Sumerischen . . . . . 445
J. Keetman
Stativität und Perfektivität in den Ost- und Westsemitischen Sprachen . . . . 455
Eulàlia Vernet i Pons

Hurrian Language
A Hurro-Akkadian Expression for Changing One’s Testimony Attested in
Nuzi Trial Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Jeanette C. Fincke
Hurrian Personal Names in the Kingdom of Ḫatti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Stefano de Martino
Gedanken zu den Textstellen I:90 und III:30 in dem Mittanni-Brief  . . . . . . 487
J. Oliva
viii Contents

Law in the Ancient Near East

Historical Context and Social Theories: Its Influence on the Study of
Mesopotamian Juridical Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
Eleonora Ravenna
The Importance of Time in Old Babylonian Juridical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Cristina Simonetti

Middle Assyrian Texts and Studies

Sag mir quando, sag mir wann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Stefan Jakob
Contractual Formalism and Zukunftsbewältigung in
Middle Assyrian Agricultural Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
J. Cale Johnson
The Eponym Bēr-nādin-apli and the Documents Referring
to the Expeditions to the City of Tille in the Reign of
Tukultī-Ninurta I (1233–1197 b.c.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
Jaume Llop
Die tägliche Speisung des Assur (gināʾu) und deren politische Bedeutung . . . 561
Stefan M. Maul
Imperial Culture: Some Reflections on Middle Assyrian Settlements . . . . . . 575
Aline Tenu

Varia
Tugdamme and the Cimmerians: A Test of Piety in
Assyrian Royal Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
Selim F. Adalı
The Changing Approaches to History in the Neo-Assyrian Palace Reliefs . . . 595
Mehmet-Ali Ataç
Genres Meet: Assurbanipal’s Prayer in the Inscription L4
and the Bilingual Communal Lamentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
Amitai Baruchi-Unna
L’incorruptible et l’éphémère: le miel et la glace, composants sacrés
des boissons royales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
Daniel Bonneterre
Three Kings of the Orient in Archaic Ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
Petr Charvát
Ilum-išar et Apil-kīn: deux nouvelles inscriptions de Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
Laurent Colonna d’Istria and Anne-Caroline Rendu Loisel
A Few Thoughts about Late Chalcolithic Architecture and
the Uruk Expansion in the Middle Euphrates Area . . . . . . . . . . . 657
Jesús Gil Fuensanta and Juan Manuel Gonzalez Salazar
Further Considerations on the Ankara Silver Bowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
Federico Giusfredi
 Contents ix

The Evolution of the Side Court House in Late MB Central and

Southwestern Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Fabrizio Giovannetti
The Role of the Saĝĝa in Ur III Based on the Puzriš-Dagān Texts . . . . . . . 689
Jorge Hernández
Life Extension: Secondary Burial and the Making and
Unmaking of Self in EB IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705
Rick Hauser
The Offering for the Ritual of King Seleucus III and His Offspring . . . . . . . 739
Yasuyuki Mitsuma
Some New Light on Pre-Sargonic Umma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745
Salvatore F. Monaco
Settlement Patterns and Interactions in theWest Bank Highlands
in the Iron Age I Period: A New Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
Alessio Palmisano
Computational and Spatial Approaches to the Commercial Landscapes
and Political Geography of the Old Assyrian Colony Period . . . . . . . 767
Alessio Palmisano
Eunuchs in Hatti and Assyria: A Reassessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785
Ilan Peled
Eridu Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
Giovanni Pettinato†
Les particularités d’emploi des signes cunéiformes à différentes périodes
de la langue hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Olga Popova
Recent Researches in the Erbil Region: 2010 Excavations in
Kilik Mishik (Iraqi Kurdistan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Olivier Rouault
Wer war Großkönig I(a)+ra/i-TONITRUS der KARAHÖYÜK-Inschrift? . . . . 823
Zsolt Simon
Identification of an Unfinished Statue Found in a Quarry
at Karakiz, Yozgat, Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Dr. İlknur Taş, Ömer Yılmaz, and Özlem Sir Gavaz
 Offprint from:
L. Feliu, J. Llop, A Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín (ed.),
Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the
56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona
© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Genres Meet:
Assurbanipal’s Prayer in the Inscription L4
and the Bilingual Communal Lamentations

Amitai Baruchi-Unna
The Hebrew University of J e r u sal e m

A central question in the study of ancient Near Eastern historiography is the

nature of the source material used in the composition of the text. Scholarly dis-
cussions of Assyrian royal inscriptions usually proceed on the supposition that the
only sources their authors used were their recollections, imaginings, and previous
historiographical accounts of the events. Thus, varying accounts are usually dealt
with in light of the differences between the accounts, as they appear within inscrip-
tions from several periods of the reign of the same king. Apart from short notes
or limited discussion within general reviews, 1 scholarly literature seldom attends
to this topic, and then only as a solution for philological problems that have come
up while treating a certain text 2 and when there are textual features that suggest
the conclusion that the information was taken from a ready source. 3 This article
is part of a project undertaken to fill this gap by means of systematic collection of
cases in which the narrative deviates in various ways from the routine writing in
the inscriptions and examination of their linkage to certain literary or administra-
tive genres outside of the royal inscriptions. I will examine the text of the prayer
that Ashurbanipal directed to the god Marduk before returning the god’s statue to
Babylon as recounted in his inscription labeled L4; 4 and I will suggest taking it as
Author’s note: This essay is based on a section of my Ph.D. dissertation: “Genres Meet: Itineraries,
Prayers and Divine Messages in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions” (Jerusalem 2009; Hebrew), written under
the supervision of Prof. Mordechai Cogan. I want to thank Prof. Cogan for his devoted guidance and for
reading a draft of this paper as well.
1.  For chronicles as possible source material for the royal inscriptions, see: A. K. Grayson, “History
and Historians of the Ancient Near East: Assyria and Babylonia,” Orientalia 49 (1980) 164. Neverthe-
less, the problem of source material is only displaced to the chronicle and is not solved. From the reliefs,
it is clear that the scribes recorded in some details in the field, but this material has yet to be discovered,
see: ibid. (in texts); and H. Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the
Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Assyria 1995 (ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting; Helsinki: Helsinki Univer-
sity Press, 1997) 329.
2.  See, for example: H. Tadmor, “The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III,” Iraq 35 (1973)
141–42; idem, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, 1994) 271; M. Cogan, “Tyre and Tiglath-Pileser III,” JCS 25 (1973) 96–99.
3.  See M. Cogan, “A Plaidoyer on Behalf of the Royal Scribes,” Ah Assyria . . . Studies in Assyr-
ian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. M. Cogan and
I. Ephʿal; Scripta Hierosolymitana 33; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991) 121–28.
4. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s
(3 vols.; VAB 7; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) 252–71 and further notes in R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriften-
werk Assurbanipals (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996) 187–88.

611
612 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

a citation of the prayer that the king actually prayed during the events narrated or
as a paraphrase of it. This suggestion is based on internal analysis of the account, a
comparison of it with the way in which other prayers are reported in Assyrian royal
inscriptions, and, finally, a comparison of a group of prayers of which Ashurbani-
pal’s prayer can be considered to be a part with the corpus of the bilingual prayers
of the lamentation-priests.

1.  The Prayer of Ashurbanipal to Marduk

The prayer of Ashurbanipal to Marduk concerning returning Marduk’s image
to his temple at Babylon appears within the inscription L4, a dedicatory inscription
to Marduk composed to be engraved upon a royal statue to be set up in the god’s
temple. 5 At the center of the inscription, which was found written on two frag-
ments of a large tablet (K 3050+2694), is an account narrating the return of the
Marduk statue, an event dated to the first full year of the king’s reign. 6 While the
date of composition is not known, one can deduce from the positive attitude directed
to Šamaš-šumu-ukīn—Ashurbanipal’s brother who was enthroned in Babylonia by
their father’s command—that it was during the first phase of Ashurbanipal’s reign,
before the Babylonian rebellion (652–648 b.c.e.).
The actions narrated within this inscription resume the process of treating the
image of Marduk begun during the days of Esarhaddon. Previous stages of this
process are narrated in the Esarhaddon AsBbA inscription, within which the first
case of a prayer incorporated into the inscriptional text occurs. The restoration of
the temples of Babylonia and that of Esagila—the Marduk temple at Babylon—in
particular had drawn near to completion toward the end of the reign of Esarhaddon,
and the journey to return his divine image, which was the occasion of the previous
prayer, had begun but was halted for some reason. Ashurbanipal resumed this pro-
cess on his ascent to the throne (November 669 b.c.e.) and set the return of Marduk
to his temple to the occasion of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn’s enthronement in Babylon, after
the beginning of his first full year of reign (May 668 b.c.e.). 7

5.  See H. Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS
12 (1958) 38 n. 92; idem, “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature,” in History Histo-
riography and Interpretation (ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983) 47–48.
6.  This dating is in accord with the relevant passages of three different chronicles fixing this event
at Ayyāru (II) of the first not-full year of Šamš-šumu-ukīn. See A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian
Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5; Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975) 86, lines 34–36;
127, lines 35–36; 131, lines 5–7.
7. For detailed treatment of these events, their chronology, and political background see: J.  A.
Brinkman, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics 747–626 b.c. (Occasional Publications
of the Babylonian Fund 7; Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund of the University Museum, 1984), 86; W.
G. Lambert, “Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylon,” in Ad bene et fideliter seminan-
dum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, (ed. G. Mauer and U. Magen; AOAT 220;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, 1988) 157–74; G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 bc: A Political His-
tory (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te İstanbul 69; Istanbul: Neder-
lands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1992) 103–4. For the theological background, see:
M. Nissinen and S. Parpola, “Marduk’s Return and Reconciliation in a Prophetic Letter from Arbela,” in
Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani
Harvainen (ed. H. Juusola et al.; Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004) 199–219.
For the possibility that the postponement was due to some technical problems faced by the restorers, see:
A. R. George, “The Bricks of E-Sagil,” Iraq 57 (1995) 173–97. For the linkage of this description to the
Esarhaddon texts describing this same step before the time it had finally been postponed, see: R. Borger,
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 613

The inscription opens with the selection of Ashurbanipal for kingship, the cur-
riculum of his studies while regent, 8 his ascent to the throne, and the peace and
prosperity characteristic of his reign. Following this is a section resembling the
“historical section” of a royal inscription, which starts with an indication of time
and states that the king visited the temples and prayed; the latter is described by
a sentence indicating the content of the prayer, after which the prayer is presented
verbatim:
In my first year of reign, when Marduk, lord of all, entrusted me to the kingship
of Assyria, I took hold of the edges (of the garment) of his great divinity (and)
visited his temples. Concerning the return of his divinity I constantly prayed,
plead his greatness divine [saying?]:
   Remember Babylon, which by your anger you destroyed!
   Turn back (kišādka tirra) towards Esagila, the palace of your lordship;
   Turn your face back (to it) (suḫḫira pā[nīka])!
  It is enough (time) since you left your city, (and) set your residence in an
    inappropriate place.
   You, Enlil of the gods, Marduk, command to go to Babylon!
  In your supreme unchangeable speech, let (the command) be set to enter
     Esagila. . .’ 9
The concluding words of the prayer as well as the opening of the following account
are missing, after which comes an account of the journey to Babylon, conducted
with the participation of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and accompanied by the army and addi-
tional divine images. After erecting the image in Esagila, it is reported that the king
erected a statue of himself in a position of constant prayer before Marduk, probably
the very statue upon which the inscription was inscribed.
From the supposedly existent complete prayer, only the request section is pre-
sented; the name of the prayer is not indicated, while the divine address occurs only
toward the end of the request. Obviously, both items do appear within the descrip-
tion of the prayer presented prior to its words. One can specify the divinity, deduc-
ing its identity from the explicit naming of the city and the sanctuary interwoven
into the prayer prior to the sentence mentioning the god by his name. And as is
found in Esarhaddon’s AsBbA inscription, the wording of the prayer is syntactically
not necessary; the account would have been complete without it. The sentence that
describes the prayer reports the existence of the prayer as well as its content. The
latter is done by means of infinitive structures attached to the verb by a relative
pronoun: ša alāk ilūtišu (“concerning his divine march”); thus, as far as concerns the
continuity of the narrative, the wording of the prayer adds no new information. It is

Die Inschriften Asarhaddons König von Assyrien (AfOBei 9; Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers,
1956) 79; C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Introduction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The
Mesopotamian Mīs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the
Ancient Near East (ed. M. B. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 66–67.
8. This text holds a pivotal position at the discussion concerning Ashurbanipal’s literacy. See
B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina Šulmi Īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der Akītu-
prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend V. Chr. (Baghdader Forschungen 16; Mainz
am Rhein: P. Von Zabern, 1994) 311–15; A. Livingstone, “Ashurbanipal–Literate or Not,” ZA 97 (2007)
100–101. See also: J. C. Fincke, “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh,” AfO 50 (2003–4) 111.
9.  Ashurbanipal L4 ii, Lines 26–34 see: Streck, Assurbanipal, 262 and notes: Borger, Assurbanipal,
188.
614 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

noteworthy that prior to the wording, several signs are missing; the presence of the
direct-citation marker might fill this gap.
The request uttered in the prayer is an artistic and argumentive masterpiece.
It consists of four requests for different divine actions arranged in casual order and
divided into couplets: remembering and turning, going and entering. The name of
the city is recalled within the first request in each couplet, each in different writing
(Bābili and Šuanaki), 10 and the name of the sanctuary, Esagila, is recalled within
the second request of each couplet. Between the two couplets, the prayer presents
before his god the time that has passed and his stay in an inappropriate place as
a problem requiring resolution; after directing divine attention to the city and the
temple, these pieces of information are expected to lead the god to move ahead on
what is asked within the second couplet. The verbs used in the first three requests
are in the imperative form, whereas in the last one, because the word of the god
(literary: “his mouth”) is the grammatical subject, the precative form is in use. Thus,
the request is developed as a quadrilateral structure, whose apex—the request di-
rected to the god to enter his temple—is marked by the transition from imperative
forms (“Remember! Turn [your neck]! Turn [your face]! Command [to go]!”) into
a precative one (“Let [the command] be set!”), while the quadrilateral structure
is maintained by double use of an imperative form within the second part of the
request.
The direct appeal to the god is realized by the four imperative forms used within
the first three requests as well as by other second-person verbal forms and pro-
nouns. In particular, it is emphasized by the separate pronoun ‘you’, attā, used—
though syntactically unnecessary—within the two couplets of requests.

2.  Reporting Royal Prayers and

Their Content in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
To understand the uniqueness of the account of Ashurbanipal’s prayer to Mar-
duk, one should examine the way in which Assyrian royal inscriptions usually re-
port royal prayers and their content. The “praying king” topos is a literary pattern
designed to report a “historical” prayer within the historical context in which it was
uttered. Such a prayer was uttered, according to the inscription, during a specific
historical event; it is neither a form of prayer to be uttered in a particular context,
nor is it a prayer that was prepared to be uttered at some future point, nor is it a
prayer that was inscribed upon an object that was perpetually in the presence of
the gods. 11 The topos consists of the following components: a description of a threat
or a difficulty faced by the king; the king’s turning to the gods in prayer; occasion-

10.  Šuanna was the name of a quarter in the city of Babylon, and beginning with the twelfth cen-
tury b.c.e. became a nickname of the whole city. At the middle of the first millennium b.c.e., the spelling
š u-an-na(ki) is to be taken as poetic form that should be read as Babylon. See A. R. George, Babylonian
Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40; Leuven: Department Orientalistiek, 1992)
241–42.
11.  For (Sumerian) prayers written on such artifacts, see: W.W. Hallo, “Individual Prayer in Sumer-
ian: The Continuity of a Tradition,” JAOS 88 (1968) 76. Beginning with the days of Esarhaddon, such
Akkadian prayers sometimes appear within the concluding section of Assyrian as well as Babylonian
royal inscriptions. In my Ph.D. dissertation (pp. 141–50), I dealt separately with this sort of prayer, and
suggested seeing its appearance as a development of the section of the dedication inscription designated
to indicate the purpose of the dedication, on which occasion the inscription has been composed.
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 615

ally, this is followed by a divine response; and finally, the king is usually described
as overcoming the threat or difficulty. The topos occurs in association with building
projects or military campaigns, in preparation for which the king found it necessary
to pray for help and success.
At the first occurrences of the “praying king” topos, only the prayer is reported.
Thus, for example, in an inscription of Shalmaneser I (1273–1244 b.c.e.) at the be-
ginning of the military-political section, it is narrated:
At that time, at the beginning of my vice-regency, the land of Uruaṭri rebelled
against me. I prayed to the god Aššur and the great gods, my lords. I moved my
troops and ascent the mass of their mighty mountains. I conquered. . . . 12
As mentioned above, an additional component that may appear is the divine re-
sponse to the royal prayer, and this appears as early as the second occurrence of the
topos within the inscription of same king (A.0.77.1 lines 88–106). 13
In the occurrences of the topos within the inscriptions of Shalmaneser I, neither
the purpose of the prayer nor its content is indicated; they can only be deduced
from their context. In later occurrences, however, the prayer’s purpose is occasion-
ally indicated by means of grammatical structures using infinitive forms. Thus,
for example, in an inscription of Aššur-nādin-apli (1207–1204 b.c.e.), an emergency
building project is described as follows:
When the course of the Tigris beside my city Assur was altered, it cut through
six hundred (iku) of field, and (so) created a (new) bed for itself; I prayed to the
gods Aššur and Šamaš to return (ana turri) the course of the Tigris to its (for-
mer) position, and I vowed in the presence of the gods Aššur and Šamaš to make
my royal statue (and) to erect (it) at the entrance of my city, the desired object
of the gods. 14
In this occurrence of the topos, the action that took place following the prayer is not
narrated, whereas the purpose of the prayer is explicitly indicated. This is done,
as mentioned above, by means of an infinitive structure: mardīt id(2)Idiqlat ana
ašrišunu ana turri, “to return the course of the Tigris to its (former) position.”
Within military-political accounts, the purpose of the prayer was first indicated
a half millennium later in the inscriptions of Sargon II (722–705 b.c.e.), in an in-
scription known as “The Charter of the city of Aššur.” 15 In a rather broken section
of this inscription, the uniting of his enemies in an alliance is described, after which
the king narrates: “I prayed and applied to the god Aššur concerning the conquest
(aššu kašād) of the land of Hamath,” (lines 23–24). Following this, the narrator
reports that “the god Aššur heard [my prayer] and accepted my request” (line 25).
The last stage of this process, in which the explicitness of the reported prayer
increased, is found in an inscription of Ashurbanipal (669–627 b.c.e.). In a descrip-
tion of the relationships between the latter and the contemporary Lydian kings and
those between Lydia and Egypt, the inscription implies that death came upon the

12.  A.0.77.1 lines 26–37 see: A. K Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc
(to 1115 bc) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 1; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1987) 183.
13.  See Grayson RIMA 1 184.
14.  A.0.79.1 lines 15–27 see: Grayson RIMA 1 301.
15.  See H. W. F. Saggs, “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria: 1. The “Aššur
Charter”,” Iraq 37 (1975) 14.
616 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

Lydian king Gūgu as a result of the prayer that the Assyrian monarch directed to
the gods Aššur and Ištar:
He (Gūgu) broke off his riders, which he constantly sent to inquire of my well-
being. Since he had become unfaithful to the word of Aššur, the god, my beget-
ter, he trusted in his own strength and became proud; he had sent troops to
aid Tušamilki (Psametichus), the king of Egypt, who had thrown off my yoke.
Whereas I was thus reported, and prayed to the gods Aššur and Ištar (as follows):
   Let his corpse be cast before his enemies!
  (pān nakiršu pagaršu linadīma)
   And his bones be scattered about (lit.: carried off)!
  (liššûni eṣmēssu)
That which I implored of Aššur, came about: Before his enemies his corpse was
cast; his bones were carried off. The Cimmerians, whom he had defeated by in-
voking my name, rose up and swept over his entire land. 16
In this account, the content of the prayer is presented by direct speech. It thus ap-
pears that during the centuries of the use of the “praying king” topos, the degree
of explicitness concerning the content of the prayer increased: beginning with the
absence of any indication, followed by indication of the purpose of the prayer by
means of infinitive structures, and then developing into the presentation of the
prayer as a citation. 17
The perfect fitness of the content of the present case and the report of its con-
sequences implies that the text of the prayer in the inscription is based upon the
account of the events that occur thereafter, and not upon another written source.
This situation is rather similar to the basic occurrences of the “praying king” topos,
in which the audience could deduce the content of the prayer from the account of the
following actions and achievements. The cases in which the content of the prayer is
indicated by means of infinitive structures can be taken as mediate stage between
the two situations. The content of the prayer that audience was informed of in the
last two stages is therefore detailing of the first stage and should be taken as the
part of the free composition of the author.
Nevertheless, it seems that the way in which Ashurbanipal’s payer to Marduk is
incorporated in its context, as well as the linkage its content shows to texts outside
of the royal inscriptions, implies that, whereas this case is similar to previous cases
of reported royal prayer on Assyrian royal inscriptions, it is different with regard to
the report of the content of the prayer. 18
16.  Ashurbanipal A ii lines 111–120; the whole passage is not included in the other editions. See
Borger, Assurbanipals, 31–32. See further M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, “Gyges and Ashurbanipal: A Study
in Literary Transmission,” Orientalia 46 (1977) 78–79.
17.  It is noteworthy that, as can be expected in such processes, the development described above did
not occur within every known text and that, until the end of the Assyrian periods, inscriptions including
prayer reports with features of the early stages were still composed.
18.  Elsewhere I have dealt with the first case in which a prayer is cited verbatim, in Esarhaddon
inscription AsBbA, which narrates the restoration of Babylonian cities, temples, and divine images, and
that of Marduk in particular. I suggested taking the prayer as a citation of the one prepared for the king
to recite in one of the first stages of the process of creation of the images. See A. Baruchi-Unna, “Genres
Meet: The Prayer of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria, in the Inscription AsBbA and Akkadian Prayers in
Ritual Contexts,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 21 (2012) 153–76
(Hebrew).
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 617

3.  The Prayer of Ashurbanipal to Marduk

and Prayers Out of Assyrian Royal Inscriptions
The appeal directed to the god to return to his city that he has destroyed is a mo-
tif known from several prayers of a similar historical or ritual context: the bringing
back of a divine image to his temple. In the first two cases brought here, the context
within which the prayer is integrated is ritualistic, whereas the third prayer, as that
of Ashurbanipal, occurs within a historiographic context. 19
The first prayer is part of the Babylonian Akitu-ritual. On this occasion, on
the 2nd of Nisānu, the high priest (aḫu rabû) is to utter a prayer before Marduk.
The prayer, a great part of which is represented in following lines of Sumerian and
Akkadian, praises the power of the god in the world and describes his importance
among gods as well as humans. Toward the end, in a unilingual Akkadian section,
the prayer directs a request to his god: 20
Love your city, Babylon!
Turn your face (suḫḫir pānīku) towards Esagila, your home!
Establish the exemption of the Babylonians, the people of privilege! 21
The fact that the priest asks the god to turn his face to his temple, though he was
there at this very moment, can be understood when we consider that during this
festival the image was lead to a special temple outside of the city and returned only
at its end.
The second prayer is cited from a ritual from Uruk that was to be performed at
the end of a mīs pî ceremony, 22 possibly following a restoration of a divine image, 23
during its ceremonial entrance into his temple. As part of this ceremony, the king
and the eunuchs were to utter the following prayer: 24

19.  The following two cases are found in Babylonian rituals that were copied during the Seleucid
Period but nevertheless reflect ancient custom. See M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The
Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice (CM 25; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 100.
20.  The fact that the last section of the prayer is presented in Akkadian only serves as a further
evidence for Wasserman and Gabbay’s argument that at late periods in specific situations the kalûs sang
in Akkadian. See N. Wasserman and U. Gabbay, “Literatures in Contact: The Balaĝ Úru Àm-Ma-Ir-Ra-Bi
and Its Akkadian Translation UET 6/2, 403,” JCS 57 (2005) 75.
21.  DT 15 i lines 30–32; see F. Thuraeu-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris: Leroux, 1921) 130. For
the economic privileges of Babylonian citizens, the mention of which in this prayer may testify to their
importance, see J. Bidmead, The akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Meso-
potamia (Gorgias Dissertations—Near Eastern Series 2; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002) 50–53. For a
general treatment, see: M. Weinfeld, “Privileges and Freedoms for Temple Cities,” in Social Justice in
Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: Magnes / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 97–132.
22.  See W. R. Mayer, “Seleukidische Rituale aus Warka mit Emesal Gebeten,” Orientalia 47 (1978)
444. For the Mīs Pî ceremony, see: C. Walker and M. B. Dick, in Born in Heaven; idem, The Introduction
of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual (SAALT 1; Helsinki: The
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001).
23.  See M. E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac: Capital Deci-
sions, 1988) 26; A. Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in
Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 162; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1998)
265.
24.  For reading “eunuch” at the last line preceding the prayer, see: Berlejung, Die Theologie der
Bilder 262 n. 1254. For additional transliteration of this line, see: S. M. Maul, ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen’:
Die sumerisch-akkadischen Ersahunga-Gebete (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988) 29.
618 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

Come, O God! Come, O God!

Come, O God! We want to see you!
Come, O God! Look at your city (naplis āluka)!
Return to your temple (ana bētka tūr)!
Return to your city (ana āluka tūr)!
Bless the king, who fears you! Keep the well-being of his men! 25
The ritual instructions in this text are written in Akkadian, whereas the various
lamentations and prayers are mostly in the Emesal dialect, peculiar to the kalûs,
the lamentation-priests. 26 In this case, as well as in the aforementioned one and in
many cases in the literature of this kind from the first millennium b.c.e., the prayer
is given in Sumerian along with an Akkadian version. Usually, the Akkadian text
follows the Sumerian one, line by line, whereas in this case, it is written at the end
of each line, probably due to the shortness of the lines.
The third prayer of the group occurs within a historiographic context. In the
year 1159 b.c.e. the Elamite army invaded Babylon, killed its king, bringing to an
end the ruling Kassite dynasty and capturing the image of Marduk (and possibly
that of the goddess Nanay as well). 27 A generation passed and Nebuchadnezzar I
(1125–1104 b.c.e.) succeeded to the Babylonian throne, and in his Elamite wars he
succeeded in bringing back the image of the national god to his temple. This event
had political and religious significance 28 and is described with a special flourish
in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar I and other compositions of his time and
later. 29 In these compositions, the king is repeatedly described as praying, and in
several cases, parts of the prayers are presented as if cited verbatim. 30 In a bilin-
gual Sumerian-Akkadian text, partly preserved in copies prepared for Ashurbani-
pal’s library, the royal prayers are presented at length (B.2.4.9 lines 6–14). 31 An-
other text, a Neo-Assyrian copy of Babylonian inscription probably also prepared for
the same library, narrates the same achievement and the royal prayer is recounted;
its Akkadian text is given verbatim:

25.  W 20030/3 32–43 see: Mayer, “Seleukidische Rituale,” 446.

26. For the Emesal prayers in general and the congregational lamentations in particular, see
U. Gabbay, The Sumero-Akkadian Prayer “Eršema”: A Philological and Religious Analysis (Hebrew Uni-
versity Ph.D. dissertation; Jerusalem, 2007). In the introduction to the Eršema edition, he discusses this
group of genres as a whole.
27.  See J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158–722 b.c. (AnOr 43; Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968) 86–90; R. Labat, “Elam and Western Persia, ca. 1200–1000 b.c.,”
in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/2: The Middle East and the Aegean Region, c. 1380–1000 b.c.
(3rd ed.; ed. I. E. S. Edwards et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 485–87.
28.  For a restoration of the background of Marduk return to Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnez-
zar I and review of the consequences of this event, see Brinkman, Post-Kassite Babylonia, 105–10. Lam-
bert suggests taking this event as the background for Marduk’s ascent to the head of the Babylonian pan-
theon. See W. G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient
Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, (ed. W. S. McCullough;
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964) 3–13.
29. For the theological significance ascribed to this event in a variety of ancient texts, see J. J.
M. Roberts, “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective,” in Essays on the Ancient
Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (ed. M. DeJong Ellis; Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977)
183–87. For new editions of part of these texts, see G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia, from the Second Dy-
nasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 bc) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia,
Babylonian Periods 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995) 17–35 (B 2.4.5–11). Frame counts
several further texts on p. 12.
30.  See B.2.4.5 (see below) and B.2.6.6, rev., lines 18–26 (Frame RIMB 2 21).
31.  See Frame RIMB 2 23–31.
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 619

Enough! For me the dejected and prostrate one

Enough! In my country weeping and mourning exist.
Enough! Among my people crying and mourning exist.
Until when, O lord of Babylon, will you sit in the enemy country?
May beautiful Babylon be remembered by you!
Turn your face back (šusḫira pānika) to Esagila that you love! 32
The four prayers presented above share many of the same characteristics. All four
were spoken, or were supposed to be recited, as part of a procedure of bringing back
a divine image to its place in the temple, and in all of them the prayers request the
god to come back to his temple. In all four, the action of return is divided into stages:
first, the god is asked to give his attention to his city or temple, then to physically
return. In each of the four, the temple and the city are separately mentioned. Three
of the prayers—those of Nebuchadnezzar, Ashurbanipal, and the king and the eu-
nuchs—share the following feature: although they are to be read by a king, his
name is not mentioned in them, nor is space left to mention it. The two “historical”
prayers (that of Nebuchadnezzar and Ashurbanipal) have further common features:
both deal with the return of the same deity to the same temple; in both cases, the
absence of the deity resulted from the occupation of the city by the enemy; and
both contain a reference to the long duration of the exile and to the unfitness of its
place. 33 Finally, as in the akitu prayer, these prayers variously use the phrase “turn
your face!” 34

Ashurbanipal’s Prayer and the

Bilingual Congregational Lamentation
One feature is shared by the three prayers described above, and not by Ashurba-
nipal’s prayer: a close link to bilingualism. Nevertheless, it seems that the formula-
tion of the request directed to the god by the words “Turn toward Esagila!” (literally:
“turn your neck”) hints that this prayer has a link to the bilingual literary-religious
domain of the kalûtu, the literary treasure of the lamentation priests. The combina-
tions ‘to return’ (tarû D), or ‘to turn’ (saḫāru D or Š), the ‘neck’ (kišādu), or the ‘face’
( pānu), are quite common in Akkadian texts that show an apparent link to Sumer-
ian ones. For example, in a bilingual prayer written on the tablet K 101, the prayer
says to the goddess: “Until when, my mistress, your face will be turned away?”
(Sumerian: me.en.na gašan.mà i.bí.zu nigin.na.kex; Akkadian: adi mati bēltī
suḫḫurū pānūki). 35 Similarily, the word kišādu, ‘neck’, occurs many times in the Ak-
kadian translation within manuscripts of Emesal lamentations. For example, in an

32.  B.2.4.5 lines 5–10 see: Frame RIMB 2 18.

33.  Understanding the repeated call “Come, O god!” as reference to the unfitness of the place within
which the god has remained while the priest has prayed would make the number of these prayers three.
34.  Höffken connects the inscription engraved on the stele of Adda-guppi, Nabunidus’ mother, to
this group. See C. J. Gadd, “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” Anatolian Studies 8 (1958) 46–52;
P. Höffken, “Fürchte dich nicht, denn ich bin mit dir!” (Jesaja 41, 10): Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Grund-
texten des Alten Testaments (Münster: LIT, 2005) 134. In this inscription, recording inter alia the return
of divine images to sanctuaries in Harrān, Adda-guppi testifies that she prayed and grasped the hem of
Sîn’s garment (i line 17; ii line 4), that she visited his sanctuaries (i line 34), and in her prayer she asks
the god “Do not forget Eḫulḫul!” (ii line 4).
35.  See H. Zimmern, Babylonische Busspsalmen: umschrieben uebersetzt und erklaert (Leipzig: Bre-
itkopf & Haertel, 1885) 10; Maul, Herzberuhigungsklagen, 309; and additional bilingual texts containing
these combinations at CAD S s.v. saḫāru 11 (pp. 49–50).
620 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

Ershahunga lamentation 36 entitled: me-e di-kud-ta me-e di-kud-ta, “I am to

the judge! I am to the judge!” the prayer, while speaking about himself in the third
person: “the man who prays”, calling his god: “Turn your neck to him” (Akkadian:
kišādka suḫḫiršu; Sumerian: gú-zu ⟨x-⟩mu-un-ši-íb). 37 In a Balag lamentation
entitled ame amašana, “The bull in his fold,” for example, a question is asked:
“How long will you hide your neck in your lap?” (Akkadian: adi mati . . . kišādka ana
sunika taškuna; Sumerian: gú-zu úr-ra ba-e-ni-mar-ra èn-šè). 38 The picture
that emerges from this selection of occurrences of these combinations leads one to
suspect that any such occurrence in an Akkadian prayer has a link with Sumerian
texts. 39
Nevertheless, the link between Ashurbanipal’s prayer and its like and the
prayers of the lamentation priests is not limited to vocabulary; it can be found in
the ritual context and the content as well. The main function of the congregational
lamentations of various genres, found in great quantity beginning from the Old
Babylonian Period, was to pacify the hearts of the gods, and they were used in
disaster-prone times, such as the moments of passage from day to night and vise
versa, and while treating temples and divine images. 40 Even though over the course
of time these lamentations tended to function in other contexts as well, their con-
tent, and occasionally their ritual function, connect the restoration of cities to the
return of divine images to their places and to the reorganizing of ordinary ritual.
In cases in which an Akkadian text is added to the Sumerian one, the choice of
words strengthens this impression. For example, in the Eršema at the end of the
congregational lamentation a-ab-ba ḫu-liḫ-ḫa, “O angry sea,” a request directed
to a variety of gods repeatedly appears: “Turn back and look at your city!” (Sumer-
ian: nigin-na urú-zu u6 gá-e-dè). 41 In several manuscripts of the same prayer,

36. For lamentations of this sort, see P. Michalowski, “On the Early History of the Eršahunga
Prayer,” JCS 39 (1987) 37–48; Maul Herzberuhigungsklagen.
37.  See ibid. VAT 56+ obv. lines 42–43 (no. 37; pp. 206–213). See also: K 5992 obv. lines 23′–24′ (no.
6; p. 99); VAT 56+ rev. lines 19–20 ( no. 30; p. 166); K 4045 B + obv. lines 16–7; rev. lines 9–10 (no. 31;
p. 186); Rm 2, 424 obv. lines 7′–8′ (no. 63; p. 273); K 4623 (+) obv. lines 23′–24 (no. 74; p. 297); K 13501
obv. lines 1′–2′ (no. 101; p. 347).
38.  See Cohen Canonical Lamentations 155, line 27. See also: ibid. 163 lines b+208. In a broken
passage of the balag: z i b u m z i b u m, “Arise! Arise!” from Assur found in bilingual manuscripts, there
appear the word gu - z u, ‘your neck’, while the equivalent Akkadian line the possessive pronoun survived
only: [. . .]ka. See ibid. 344 lines b+26.
39.  The sentence ‘Turn your neck that was anger at me,’ tirra kišādka ša tasbusu elīya appears
within an Akkadian incantation designated to appease the gods (W. G. Lambert, “Dingir. sa. dib. ba In-
cantations,” JNES 33 [1974] 276 line 47); in accord with the hypothesis presented here, this incantation
occurs within an incantation file, within which a known incantation has been translated from Sumerian
(ibid., 270; Wasserman and Gabbay, Literatures in Contact, 74). Such a linkage can be ascribed to a Baby-
lonian text dealing with close issues: Šamaš’s abandonment of the city of Sippar is described: “(The god)
Šamaš, the great lord, who for many days has been angry at the land of Akkad, his neck has been angry
(isbusu kišāssu), in the days of Nabu-apla-iddin, king of Babylonia (888–866 b.c.e.), he made peace and
turned his face back (usaḫḫira pānīšu).” See L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-
Tablets in the British Museum with an Atlas of Plates Printed by order of the Trustees—Text (London:
British Museum, 1912) no. 36 ii lines 11–8.
40.  See Gabbay, Eršema, 148–51. Gabbay suggests that the restoration of the sanctuaries, widely
considered as the original setting of the creation of the congregational lamentations is just one such
situation. See ibid., 145–48
41. See Gabbay, Eršema, 442–43. The whole lamentation was edited by R. Kutscher (Oh Angry
Sea (a-ab-ba ḫu-luḫ-ḫa): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament [YNER 6; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1975]. Its first part was reedited by Cohen (Canonical Lamentations 374–400) and the
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 621

this line is translated into Akkadian: nasḫiramma ana ālika tūr (K 2003+ line 6; K
8514 line 8′; K 8646 line 7′). 42 In still another section of the same prayer there ap-
pears an Akkadian translation that deviates from the literal translation but reflects
a possible Akkadian reading of the Sumerian signs: ‘Enough! Turn back to her!’
(The Sumerian a-gi4-a-zu, ‘flooded [by deluge],’ has been translated as two sepa-
rate Sumerograms read: aḫulap [a] tūršu [gi4]; K 2003+ line 34). 43 As is true for
the Ashurbanipal prayer to Marduk and for the prayer of the king and the eunuchs
within the Uruk ritual, this prayer addresses several gods and calls them to turn to
and look at their city, and the Akkadian verbs used are saḫāru and târu G. Similar-
ily, within the Eršema lamentation: ušum gùd nú-a, “Snake laying in the nest,”
the god is asked to ‘Enter into your true house and take a seat of rest!’ ana bītka kīni
ērumma šubta nēḫta tišab (line 46), 44 and this theme is repeated in different word-
ing in the following lines. The group of prayers reviewed above shows affinity to the
congregational lamentations in the aspects of language, content and ritual context.
It can therefore be assumed that Ashurbanipal’s prayer to Marduk before his
return to Babylon—like the other three prayers of this group—has some affinity to
the religious-literary domain of the kalûs. Nevertheless, it is not to be assumed that
any of these prayers was taken directly from the Emesal kalûtu prayers. First, they
differ stylistically and structurally from these prayers. 45 Second, none of these four
prayers is labeled as belonging to one of the known genres of the kalûtu. Despite
the mention of kalûs or the names of their prayers within the immediate contexts of
three of the four, 46 none of them is said to have been recited by a kalû, or that such
a person made the prayer recite it.
Eršema at its end by him (M. E. Cohen, Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma [Hebrew Union College
Annual Supplements 2; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College 1981] 113–17, 185–86) and then by Gabbay
(Eršema, 440–49). Within the first part of the lamentation, a request is addressed to a variety of gods
called by their names and epithets, while within its second part, cities, buildings, and sanctuaries are
addressed and asked to turn and to return their look to their city. Within its third part, partly translated
into Akkadian in part of the manuscripts, the devastation of the city and the distress of its people are
described.
42. See Gabbay, Eršema, 565–66; Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 132 (text Haa). See also the Eršema
dilmunki nigin-na 1, “The important one, turn!” (line 16; Gabbay, Eršema, 188). Another Eršema from
which the first few words only are known: “The important one, turn! Seven times?.” See Gabbay, Eršema,
321.
43.  See Gabbay, Eršema, 569.
44.  See Gabbay, Eršema, 218.
45.  It is to be noted that the prayer of the priest in the akitu is mainly a hymn, and the section in
which the characteristics common to it and to the other prayers dealt with here are found is short and
near its conclusion.
46. A kalû is mentioned in a broken context: DT 15 line 40; all the instructions in W 20030/3 are
directed to the kalû and an Eršahunga is mentioned as well; a kalû is also mentioned in the Ashurbani-
pal L4 iii line 3. In another Ashurbanipal inscription, within a description of cleaning and purification
actions performed in Babylon after the suppression of the Šamaš-šumu-ukīn rebellion, the king reports:
“I purified their temples by means of magic. I cleaned up their dirty streets. I pacified their angry gods
and their furious goddesses by means of lament and Eršahunga. I completely fixed anew the sacrifices
as they have been in the past” (Ashurbanipal A iv lines 86–91; Borger, Assurbanipal, 45.) The situation
of Babylonia in 648 b.c.e. can be seen as parallel to its situation forty years earlier, after Sennacherib
destroyed it, and the action performed by Ashurbanipal after he defeated his brother can be seen as
parallel to the restoration undertaken by his father, Esarhaddon, which Ashurbanipal completed near
the beginning of his reign. It is thus not surprising that the same genre of prayers found suitable for
bringing the temples back to use, has previously been found suitable for bringing the Marduk image back
to his restored temple. For taking god images out of their temples during restoration projects, see: V. A.
Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian
622 A mitai B aruchi -U nna

It therefore can be determined that Ashurbanipal’s prayer is not a translation

of an Emesal prayer. Neither is it necessary to assume its original bilingual nature.
Nevertheless, we may speculate that this prayer was composed in the spirit of such
prayers, and with a look toward their language and their translation tradition. The
fact that within the prayer itself—as within Nebuchadnezzar’s prayer and that of
the king and the eunuchs—the name of the king is not mentioned, leads to the as-
sumption that the kalûs had texts of extra-generic prayer ready for use in special
occasions.
Royal participation in rituals relating to treatment of divine images emerges
from a ritual that appears in the text TuL 27, the manuscripts of which are of Neo-
Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian setting. 47 This ritual, which opens with the line: “[If]
a divine [image] became dilapidated and suffered damage. . . .” (line 1), includes a
series of actions, including a relocation of the image—accompanied by performance
of sacrifices and laments—and its escort to the workshop of a temple (bīt mummi).
During its stay at the workshop the following ceremonies are to be performed:
You set up an offering arrangement [. . .] in the courtyard of the bīt mummi
where that god dwells; you light a pile of brushwood for Ea and Marduk. You
offer a sacrifice to Ea and Marduk; you sacrifice to that god and you perform a
takribtu-intercession. The king of the land together with his family prostrate
themselves on the ground; they do not hold back their moaning. The city and
its peoples, in lamentations (position) in the dust before the temple, prostrate
themselves; the skilled craftsmen whose bodies are pure you shall install. Until
the work of that god is completed, let not the lamentation-priest (involved in)
the work cease offering and intercessions. 48
The king’s participation in rituals related to the maintenance of divine images is
apparent, even though uttering prayers and laments is here the job of other partici-
pants. It is likely to give that as part of his role as the Babylonian monarch—as long
as his brother has not yet been crowned and apparently even thereafter—Ashur-
banipal took part in the rituals in the Babylonian sanctuaries in accord with the
requirement of the local tradition. Accordingly, and in accord with the religious-
political and propagandistic policy delineated by his father, Ashurbanipal ordered
this event to be described in a ceremonial inscription, that it be engraved upon an
image of his own, designated to stand in prayer before Marduk at his temple. In this
inscription, as in the one of his father narrating the first stages of this very same
process (Esarhaddon AsBbA), the scribes choose to bring the wording of the prayer
as a citation. To achieve this, they probably used the text of the prayer, which had
been given to the king by the lamentation priests preparing this ceremony.

and Northwest Semitic Writings (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1992) 328–29; idem, “Temporary Temples,” in Kinattutu ša Durati: Raphael Kutscher Me-
morial Volume (Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University–Occasional Publications 1; ed. A. Rainey
et al.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1993) 37–50.
47.  Considering a few of the colophons, it may be even earlier. See Walker and Dick in Born in
Heaven, 103.
48.  TuL 27, lines 10–20 see: C. Walker and M. B. Dick, SAALT 1, 232–33. Linssen suggests that
parts of this ritual are additions of the late period. See M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon,
154.
 Assurbanipal’s Prayer and the Bilingual Communal Lament 623

Conclusions
In light of the comparison of Ashurbanipal’s L4 prayer to Marduk and the bilin-
gual prayers, recited, or prepared to be recited in similar contexts, and the compar-
ison of this group of prayers and the Emesal prayers of the kalûtu, I suggest view-
ing the L4 prayer as the version of the lamentation recited by the king during the
ceremony that accompanied the relocation of the divine image from the bīt mummi
at Assur to the Marduk temple at Babylon. The prayer was either composed by
the priests for the king for the occasion during which it was recited, or was chosen
by them for him from an existing pool of extra-generic lamentations prepared for
special occasions. The Akkadian text cited in the royal inscription is part of either
a bilingual or unilingual Akkadian prayer composed in the spirit of the kalûtu, the
prayers of the lamentation priests. It was composed using the typical vocabulary
of these lamentations and in accord with the conventional translation traditions
of this genre, and a copy of it was available to the authors of Ashurbanipal’s royal
inscription L4.
We may now ascribe another dimension to Ashurbanipal’s involvement in the
rituals accompanying the return of the Marduk image to Babylon. By taking these
actions the Assyrian king created a link between himself and Nebuchadnezzar I,
the Babylonian king most identified with the successful returning of the image of
the national god to his temple. The similarity between the two cases and their de-
scriptions, as well as the supposition that Ashurbanipal knew the inscriptions of
Nebuchadnezzar I copied for his library, allow us to consider the intention behind
his moves. Thus, it seems, that Ashurbanipal chose to present himself as a second
Nebuchadnezzar. The prestige carried by this historic name can be seen from the
fact that Nabopolassar, the king who participated in the ruin of the Assyrian em-
pire, building a Babylonian one in its stead, chose to name his son after the historic
restorer of the Babylonian might. 49
49.  It is noteworthy that several years after composing the inscription, within which Ashurbanipal
likened himself to Nebuchadnezzar I, the Assyrian monarch completed the task initiated by the Babylo-
nian king. During the twelfth century, when the Elamite conqueror had taken the Marduk image, he also
took the image of the goddess Nanay of Uruk; a generation later, Nebuchadnezzar brought the former
back, while Ashurbanipal returned the latter more than half a millennium later. For Ashurbanipal’s
claim of responsibility for Nanay’s return, see P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-
Babylonian Period (Cuneiform Monographs 23; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 188.